• Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- very stupid requir

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Feb 27 20:00:22 2025
    On 2/27/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

    The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact >>>>>>>>> that HHH emulates this DD.
    On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution. >>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
    You don't understand this simple entanglement.
    Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the >>>>>>> one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this >>>>>>> input.
    No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls >>>>>> that simulator.
    In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to >>>>> get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.

    I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
    recursion.
    Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
    must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
    I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.


    When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
    correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
    of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
    always correct to reject this input finite string as
    specifying non terminating behavior.

    This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.



    But it must determine that correctly.

    It can't make that determination based on the assumption of the input
    calling a different verison of itself.

    THAT is the Tautology, which proves your HHH to be incorrecgt.

    If HHH makes that determination, that determination needs to still be
    valid if the HHH that DD calls aborts and returns 0,

    Since it isn't, your analyzer did not correctly determine the behavior,

    Note, PROGRAMS, the domain of the discussion, include *ALL* the code
    they use, and thus DD includes the code of the HHH that you are claiming
    made the correct answer, not that other imaginary version that didn't.

    Your Truth Fairy can't change that fact, only make you think so and
    prove your stupidity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 28 10:09:41 2025
    Op 27.feb.2025 om 21:25 schreef olcott:
    On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
    On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

    The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact >>>>>>>>> that HHH emulates this DD.
    On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution. >>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
    You don't understand this simple entanglement.
    Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the >>>>>>> one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this >>>>>>> input.
    No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls >>>>>> that simulator.
    In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to >>>>> get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.

    I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
    recursion.
    Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
    must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
    I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.


    When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
    correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
    of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
    always correct to reject this input finite string as
    specifying non terminating behavior.

    This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.

    An irrelevant tautology, because there is no infinite recursion in its
    input. The finite string given to HHH describes a program with no
    infinite recursion, as proven by direct execution.
    Olcott has no rebuttal for this, he only repeats his irrelevant claims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)